Evidence for God from Science

If science can't define or prove love, why is it's existence acknowledged?

Mystical wrote:If science can't define or prove love, why is it's existence acknowledged?

Because science is not the be all and end all to human knowledge.
It is only one of many tools at our disposal.

Mystical wrote:If science can't define or prove love, why is it's existence acknowledged?

I'm not sure that I would agree with your analysis that science cannot define or prove love. Perhaps it could be defined as a facet of the human psyche that makes the human behave contrary to selfish impulses, for example. It matters little, but the definition is very important, as it will be critical in guiding what information to gather as evidence to support your hypothesis.

This is far more testable than chatter and speculation about mecahnisms for speciation that are contrary to observations.

Logic, reason, and careful observation are science, not interpretations always based on the popular or accepted structure and framework of other interpretations.

It is not at all beyond the scope of science.

Thought this may be of interest to this thread:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4478040.stm

It tells of Italian scientists' research concerning physiology and love...small sample size, but I guess it's something...

Because science is not the be all and end all to human knowledge. It is only one of the tools at our disposal.

Ahhh...so refreshing that you finally realize that.

Mystical wrote:

Because science is not the be all and end all to human knowledge. It is only one of the tools at our disposal.

Ahhh...so refreshing that you finally realize that.

Apparantly you have been misreading all of my posts.

I'm not sure that I would agree with your analysis that science cannot define or prove love.

I think they can measure the changes in the brain that are an indication of love, but they cannot "prove" that someone loves or how love arises. Love's effects can be observed, but not love itself. Funny, here is a concept, action, emotion, essence, whatever, of the very backbone of this world, and science is utterly perplexed by it.

Perhaps it could be defined as a facet of the human psyche that makes the human behave contrary to selfish impulses...

I love the bible's definition of love: 1Corinthians 13:4-6

Is your point of showing the limitations of science somehow an effort to discredit it?

Mystical wrote:

I'm not sure that I would agree with your analysis that science cannot define or prove love.

I think they can measure the changes in the brain that are an indication of love, but they cannot "prove" that someone loves or how love arises. Love's effects can be observed, but not love itself. Funny, here is a concept, action, emotion, essence, whatever, of the very backbone of this world, and science is utterly perplexed by it.

Perhaps it could be defined as a facet of the human psyche that makes the human behave contrary to selfish impulses...

I love the bible's definition of love: 1Corinthians 13:4-6

Makes it sort of like gravity, intertia, light, atoms, etc, etc

Is your point of showing the limitations of science somehow an effort to discredit it?

Why, certainly not! Why would you say such a thing!?

Well love is something that doesnt exist as such; it is abstract, like other things. There are many tngs that are abstract, and love is one of them. Love cannot exist by itself, without free will beings. GFor example, before human was created there was no love. But when human was created, love started to exist (although God existed forever so love kinda existed?? dunno). But love is, apaprt from a concept, an emotion, which, again, i dont think science will be able to explain easily. I believe it will arrive there once, but since human spirit has no mass etc i dont think theres much science to go for about it.
I however believe God is also part of science even if he has no mass etc because, science is also a concept etc...
So love is an emotion or concept, soemthg abstract that doesnt exist as such... or at least my opinion on iT!!!

From a scientific standpoint, there is no difference between love and hate. Both are behaviors which are the product of certain stimuli (just like joy and sadness, pleasure and pain, etc.). Acknowledging a difference between these is acknowledging something beyond the physical makeup of a person.

I am going to have to completely disagree.

I think it's the other way around, nothing physical can exist without love.
Creation is abstract and is a manifestation of love.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I am going to have to completely disagree.

I think it's the other way around, nothing physical can exist without love.
Creation is abstract and is a manifestation of love.

So since God is Love .... You're casting your lot with Intelligent Design now?

Canuckster1127 wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I am going to have to completely disagree.

I think it's the other way around, nothing physical can exist without love.
Creation is abstract and is a manifestation of love.

So since God is Love .... You're casting your lot with Intelligent Design now?

All hail Bgood!

My friend, you've just singlehandedly proven the existence of God. Congratulations!